At one time, the Shoshone-Bannock Indian reservation in southeastern Idaho comprised nearly the entire corner of the state. It was a massive tract of some 1.8 million acres on a high desert plateau — like many reservations, mostly godforsaken scrublands that most people thought of as undesirable.

Over the years, though, the federal government — at the behest of various white business interests — gradually gnawed away at the Sho-Ban tribes’ holdings, until all that remained was about 520,000 acres along the Snake River.

Probably the largest single chunk was the 418,000 acres taken in 1902 in the Pocatello Land Run. On June 17 that year, some six thousand whites lined up along the reservation borders and, sanctioned by the federal government, which has earlier taken the essentially unilateral step of ceding the lands from the tribes, staked out claims to properties they all hoped would produce the next great gold mine of the Golden West.

It turned out that none of these hopes had much basis. The mining claims quickly turned up dry, and the only people who got rich were the ones processing the land claims. After a few years, the former tribal lands mostly became attractive farming properties. My great-granddad, a Jack Mormon named David Aslett, picked up one of these parcels around 1912 and farmed it for many years before losing it in the Depression.

The lust for Indian lands has never really gone away. Indeed, it’s become quantifiably worse in recent years, especially as many of these lands have increased exponentially in their actual value. The casino phenomenon, however, and the resulting backlash has moved the situation onto a significantly higher plane.

One of the main friction points originates with leased tribal lands, or “fee simple lands,” as they’re called. While Indian reservations constitute essentially small nations within the nation, most of them, in fact, are largely populated by whites who pay fees for the rights to live there — but who are subject to the authority of the tribes, particularly regarding land-use policy.

I’ve worked as a reporter on three separate reservations (Shoshone-Bannock in southeastern Idaho, Nez Perce in Lapwai, Idaho, and Salish/Flathead in Ronan, Montana), and I’ve had extensive dealings with the Makah tribe’s whaling controversy. In all of those places, the contention over the rights of fee-land property owners has given impetus to local campaigns by whites to whittle away at tribal sovereignty.

Now the campaign appears to be going national, thanks to the merger of two of the most potent anti-Indian organizations — One Nation United of Oklahoma and United Property Owners of Redmond, Washington. They’ve created a nationwide organization with chapters in all 50 states, according to a recent report by the editors of Indian Country:

High on the reading list of the Web site of One Nation, the anti-Indian organization, is the article titled, ‘’Schwarzenegger, tribes on collision,'’ by Alan Murray of CNBC. The main thrust of the article is to cheer on the terminator governor from California as he shakes down the tribes for all they are worth.

That’s the opportunistic focus on one coast. Elsewhere in the country United Property Owners of Redmond, Wash., has announced that they will be merging with One Nation of Oklahoma to form a new non-partisan anti-Indian organization called One Nation United. The new organization states it will have approximately 300,000 members in all 50 states. New York will be represented on the One Nation United Advisory Board by David Vickers, president of anti-Indian organization Upstate Citizens for Equality.

The news is a reminder of the steady stirring by anti-Indian groups nationally. One Nation is the Oklahoma-based portion of the nationally fast-growing coalition of organizations intent on the destruction of tribal freedom throughout the United States. Wrapping themselves in the American flag, these groups seek to gain both a national profile and national influence. At this time in history, given the trend toward majority excesses and the tenuous support for Indian positions in federal courts, this is a movement that is poised to become seriously dangerous to Indian governments. Indian country leadership dismisses it at its own peril.

What’s especially noteworthy as well is the continuing theme of “thieving” tribes “ripping off” whites. This is a motif that also has been with us a long time. Serious students of Western history are well aware, for instance, that “thievery” was a common justification for wanton slaughter of Indians by white settlers for many years.

The story goes on to note that the “anti-Indian movement is shopping for a national voice and face,” and seems to conclude that the leading candidate so far is Schwarzenegger.

The Governator’s role in the newest anti-Indian campaign, in fact, is becoming clearer all the time. The right-wing American Enterprise Magazine recently made this explicit.

It also laid out the longer-term agenda at work here. These people are not merely seeking to make the “thieving” tribes “pay their fair share” — they’re interested in wiping out the concept of tribal sovereignty altogether:

Opponents of Indian gambling fall into two philosophical camps. Some seek incremental mitigation of negative impacts. Others seek an end to tribal sovereignty, which they say is an un-American concept. Cheryl Schmit believes Congress may eventually be forced to redefine “sovereignty” or do away with it altogether. “I think it will happen,” she says, “but it will take a Constitutional amendment, and that could be a 20-year process. During that time, I’m not willing to give up all the other issues we can address through local agreements.”

Who better to fight the last Indian war than a famous action hero?